The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1887-08-06
LAUNDERING, Is IT7H

OF course, 1t Is heresy, In a small way, II
the eyes of some people, to question the
iufallibility of this good" investigating
committee, recently thrown out of fa'
Job, right in the midst of dry season, and
the hay crop failure. However, as most
of the important indictments have been
qusshed, ii is perfectly Legitimate to take
look at that part of their work which
formed the basis of one indictment that
has been quashed,
The idea suggested by the FREE TRADER
that the committee could have made any
blunders has been "spurned" with scorn, y
both Ia the committees private illustrat-
ed sgan, as we'll as on the Board itself
where Billy Dryer mercilessly scored E
G Lewis for daring to suggest that such a
thing might be.
But Why should this committee be con.
sldered infallible by anybody, even by
themselves There is not, as 1t proves, an
expert accountant In the whole crowd, al
though it is fair to say that Dryer and
Maierhufer were considered as nearly eX
Derts &c any of the members of the Board
None of the rest of the committee could
be looked on as such. One of them, In
fact,-a chairman of committee (of the
present Boapd) to settle with county oific.
er,-knew absolutely SO little of the bust
ness that when, on one occasion, 1t appeared
that there was a difference of some eight
to ten Thousand dollars (say) between Mil
ligan's earnings and receipts he ex-
claimed, Good God, did he steal all that!
Take this same account with MillIgan
as sample of their "eXpertness." Common
people, when they set about settling long
account, as rGale, go to work by making
debit and credit sides to that account to
arrive at balance due. This Is the "old
f0Ey," fossil" wey of doing things; but
these Performers" did MT have to- do IL In
that way at all. Il was Mt necessary, Of
Norton did mt know how
Thet such an exhibit was not made is
self-ev.dent from Their report. If they had
made slch q form OF account with Mill.
gan, they would have found he had stolen
less than they were pleased to report he did
steal; but it would haze saved themselves
the exhibition of at least couple of alb
surd olunders, so inconsistent with the idea
of the merest smattering of knowledge
Of accounts on their part a. to cast a justly
founded suspicion on the value of their
work as Whole.
For example the comMittee report
bill of March term, 1884, by
Items (pp. 26S and 264) in their report at
March term as $3.50 81; but IN their foot
Ings they figure In 1his item as slSGS2 81 !
It Ia an error against Milligan Of only &c.
300, but such mistake in addition is, of
course, too trifing to he called "bunder."
This is not q Typographical error, but a
,lunder that IL carried sil through the re-
port by Msierh0fer, who Gid the figuring.
u al5tueE EbdCt, QuWn ucot thc thii VAu vi
the report, they charge Milligan with
81 1856 81, drawn from State Auditor, when,
Ia, fact they had previously Included that
AN ount in the item, three lines above Qn
heir report, of ,5s5 90 actually collect
ed la fees" Here are two plumbers alone
which foot up total of 1861 against
that are apparent on the
face of their own report. AS they only
claim a shortage of between $1,000 and
80, 900 by Milligan, correction of these
two errors alone will make iby the com
mittees own showing) the balance due
Milligan just about the amount he claims;
!. e., about So 5O0l Therefore, in the light OF
these figures, how can the committee hope
to show that Milligan was "boodler"'
Furthermore, in going over his accounts
MilIigan's attorneys have found between
30 and 80 errors on both sides of the &C
count, made by him of fees not reported; or
Of fees collected once but reported twice